header-logo header-logo

01 March 2013
Issue: 7550 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Care proceedings

Re J (children) (care proceedings: past ‘possible perpetrators’ in new family unit) [2013] UKSC 9, [2013] All ER (D) 232 (Feb)

A real possibility that a parent had harmed a child in the past was not, by itself, sufficient to establish the likelihood that that parent would cause harm to another child in the future. The findings of harm caused in the past might be relied on only to the extent that they might be relevant to the issue the court had to decide. A prediction of future harm based on what had happened in the past would only be justified if one could link what had happened in the past directly and unequivocally with the person and the new family unit in whose care the subsequent child was living or would live. Where the person who harmed a child could not be identified, the threshold could not be met in relation to another child solely on the basis that a possible perpetrator of the harm was involved in the care of that child unless all possible perpetrators were so involved. The inability to establish whether a

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll